Japanese Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, teachers, and linguists wanting to discuss the finer points of the Japanese language. It's 100% free, no registration required.

So according to modern formation rules, it would be 星の岡 instead? And also is "starry hill" a good translation?
–
FlawSep 17 '11 at 14:33

2

@Flaw Yes and yes. But it might be a name of a place.
–
user458Sep 17 '11 at 14:39

I don't think it's fair to characterise が and の as having switched roles in modern Japanese compared to Old Japanese. It would be better to say that their meanings overlapped significantly. At any rate, the subject of the main clause is unmarked in Old Japanese, so it is difficult to say that there was any nominative case particle at all. See Shibatani [Languages of Japan, pp 347–357].
–
Zhen LinSep 17 '11 at 17:18

2

That's not really the point, though; the issue is that が and の didn't switch as such. In OJ they were both basically genitive particles (with differences in use, e.g. が for human subjects) that could also be used to mark subjects in certain conditions. Here's a MYS poem showing genitive の (identical to MJ), and が marking a subject: はしたての倉橋川の川の静菅我が刈りて笠にも編まぬ川の静菅.
–
MattSep 17 '11 at 20:43

1

If が was for humans, than why does 星岡 have one? Or 自由が丘 for that matter? Different time period and usage?
–
ClaytonianSep 19 '11 at 8:45